The United States and 29 other nations signed a treaty last Friday establishing common tools and rules for fighting Internet crime.

On Nov. 23, foreign ministers from the United States, Canada, Japan and South Africa joined their counterparts in 26 other countries in signing the Council of Europe's "Convention on Cybercrime," an international treaty designed to harmonize laws and penalties for crimes committed via the Internet.

The treaty also includes provisions added in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that give member states common powers to search and intercept the Internet communications of suspected terrorists.

The treaty will go into force as soon as five member states have ratified it; three of them must be Council of Europe members. The treaty still must be approved by the U.S. Senate before it takes effect in the United States.

Later this week, all 15 European Union states are expected to introduce a proposal to ratify the core elements of the treaty. The EU hopes to complete the ratification process by June 30, 2003.

The Council of Europe's cybercrime treaty has steadily earned criticism from consumer and civil liberties groups concerned that the convention could lead to the emergence of an international electronic surveillance network, or a kind of global "Big Brother."

Specifically, critics allege that U.S. law-enforcement agencies will use the treaty as an end-run around U.S. surveillance laws, and as a way to obtain the kinds of powers not granted in new U.S. anti-terrorism legislation signed into law last month.

First Amendment groups also are worried about the implications of a supplemental protocol that will soon be added to the agreement that makes any Internet publication of racist or xenophobic material a criminal offense.

Speaking on the eve of the signing ceremony in Brussels last week, the Council of Europe's Legal Director Guy de Vel countered those claims, saying the treaty strikes "a precious balance between the requirements of criminal investigations and respect for individual rights."

De Vel also said he remains mystified about allegations that the treaty might compromise civil rights.

"When I read the text of the convention, I still find it difficult to understand why these accusations were made," he said. "It is possible that the true motivations of the draft were, unfortunately, not always properly understood."